Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 893

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 63 of the 63 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer, November 1-3, 2000

·2001·JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to provide health-care providers, patients, and the general public with an assessment of currently available data regarding the use of adjuvant therapy for breast cancer. PARTICIPANTS: The participants included a non-Federal, non-advocate, 14-member panel representing the fields of oncology, radiology, surgery, pathology, statistics, public health, and health policy as well as patient representatives. In addition, 30 experts in medical oncology, radiation oncology, biostatistics, epidemiology, surgical oncology, and clinical trials presented data to the panel and to a conference audience of 1000. EVIDENCE: The literature was searched with the use of MEDLINE(TM) for January 1995 through July 2000, and an extensive bibliography of 2230 references was provided to the panel. Experts prepared abstracts for their conference presentations with relevant citations from the literature. Evidence from randomized clinical trials and evidence from prospective studies were given precedence over clinical anecdotal experience. CONSENSUS PROCESS: The panel, answering predefined questions, developed its conclusions based on the evidence presented in open forum and the scientific literature. The panel composed a draft statement, which was read in its entirety and circulated to the experts and the audience for comment. Thereafter, the panel resolved conflicting recommendations and released a revised statement at the end of the conference. The panel finalized the revisions within a few weeks after the conference. The draft statement was made available on the World Wide Web immediately after its release at the conference and was updated with the panel's final revisions. The statement is available at http://consensus.nih.gov. CONCLUSIONS: The panel concludes that decisions regarding adjuvant hormonal therapy should be based on the presence of hormone receptor protein in tumor tissues. Adjuvant hormonal therapy should be offered only to women whose tumors express hormone receptor protein. Because adjuvant polychemotherapy improves survival, it should be recommended to the majority of women with localized breast cancer regardless of lymph node, menopausal, or hormone receptor status. The inclusion of anthracyclines in adjuvant chemotherapy regimens produces a small but statistically significant improvement in survival over non-anthracycline-containing regimens. Available data are currently inconclusive regarding the use of taxanes in adjuvant treatment of lymph node-positive breast cancer. The use of adjuvant dose-intensive chemotherapy regimens in high-risk breast cancer and of taxanes in lymph node-negative breast cancer should be restricted to randomized trials. Ongoing studies evaluating these treatment strategies should be supported to determine if such strategies have a role in adjuvant treatment. Studies to date have included few patients older than 70 years. There is a critical need for trials to evaluate the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in these women. There is evidence that women with a high risk of locoregional tumor recurrence after mastectomy benefit from postoperative radiotherapy. This high-risk group includes women with four or more positive lymph nodes or an advanced primary cancer. Currently, the role of postmastectomy radiotherapy for patients with one to three positive lymph nodes remains uncertain and should be tested in a randomized controlled trial. Individual patients differ in the importance they place on the risks and benefits of adjuvant treatments. Quality of life needs to be evaluated in selected randomized clinical trials to examine the impact of the major acute and long-term side effects of adjuvant treatments, particularly premature menopause, weight gain, mild memory loss, and fatigue. Methods to support shared decision-making between patients and their physicians have been successful in trials; they need to be tailored for diverse populations and should be tested for broader dissemination.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jnci/93.13.979

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 63 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 1999, PROC ASCO, 18, 4
  2. Breen, 1999, Ethnicity & disease, 9, 111
  3. Desch, 1993, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11, 777, 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.4.777 · doi:10.1200/jco.1993.11.4.777
  4. 1999, PROC ASCO, 18, 258
  5. Fisher, 1996, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 1982, 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.7.1982 · doi:10.1200/jco.1996.14.7.1982
  6. 1999, PROC ASCO, 18, 255
  7. Giuliano, 1998, Cancer, 83, 391, 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0142(19980801)83:3<391::AID-CNCR1>3.0.CO;2-S · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0142(19980801)83:3<391::aid-cncr1>3.0.co;2-s
  8. 1998, PROC ASCO, 17, 390A
  9. Hortobagyi, 2000, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 92, 225, 10.1093/jnci/92.3.225 · doi:10.1093/jnci/92.3.225
  10. 1999, PROC ASCO, 18, 250
  11. Kollias, 1997, British Journal of Cancer, 75, 1318, 10.1038/bjc.1997.223 · doi:10.1038/bjc.1997.223
  12. Kroman, 1997, Lancet, 350, 319, 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)03052-3 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(97)03052-3
  13. Paik, 1998, JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 90, 1361, 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1361 · doi:10.1093/jnci/90.18.1361
  14. Perloff, 1996, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 1589, 10.1200/JCO.1996.14.5.1589 · doi:10.1200/jco.1996.14.5.1589
  15. 1999, PROC ASCO, 18, 2
  16. Rahman, 1998, Cancer treatment reviews, 24, 249, 10.1016/S0305-7372(98)90060-3 · doi:10.1016/s0305-7372(98)90060-3
  17. 1998, PROC ASCO, 17, 374
  18. Rea, 1998, BMJ, 316, 1518, 10.1136/bmj.316.7143.1518 · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7143.1518
  19. 2000, PROC ASCO, 19, 279
  20. Rodenhuis, 1998, Lancet, 352, 515, 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01350-6 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01350-6
  21. 1993, Lancet, 341, 1293
  22. Silvestrini, 1995, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13, 697, 10.1200/JCO.1995.13.3.697 · doi:10.1200/jco.1995.13.3.697
  23. 1997, PROC ASCO, 16, 2
  24. 2000, PROC ASCO, 19, 285
  25. Tormey, 1992, Journal of Clinical Oncology, 10, 1848, 10.1200/JCO.1992.10.12.1848 · doi:10.1200/jco.1992.10.12.1848
  26. 1999, PROC ASCO, 18, 265
  27. Wenger, 1998, Breast cancer research and treatment, 51, 255, 10.1023/A:1006188512927 · doi:10.1023/a:1006188512927

Cited by

See all 893

Metadata

Venue
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2001-07-04
Volume
93
Issue
13
Pages
979-989
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W196157878
Cited by
893
References
63
FWCI
21.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer, November 1-3, 2000. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/93.13.979
The paper
National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference Statement: Adjuvant Therapy for Breast Cancer, November 1-3, 2000. (2001). JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/93.13.979

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.